Hope its a great race and really don't care who wins it but I'm going to take Beau.

Beau 

Red will blast and if BJ gets close, he will look to sit a close pocket, he's cooked, he'll gap and then the end.  JMac will be sucked in and cooked like a fucking goose.

See who are the closers from way behind sitting off a 120 

This might be a decent ex, and excellent tri and sup....Red is a beast, he can go around that track twice at high speed   

"Yeh" stfu fuckface

Not content with the US Supreme Court’s perverse ruling blocking the Trump administration from reinstating a plainly constitutional citizenship question in the 2020 census and the Census Bureau’s apparent insubordination under Donald Trump, House Democrats recently passed legislation making it still more difficult for a future administration to reinstate the citizenship question and further insulating the agency from accountability to any president.

While the Ensuring a Fair and Accurate Census Act will do nothing of the sort, it does represent an inadvertent admission of failure in the last census — one of mammoth proportions and with massive political implications that you likely have not heard about.

The fact that such a failure has garnered minimal coverage and therefore public attention, while manifesting itself in the corruption of our republican system, demonstrates the disingenuousness of our ruling regime’s otherwise-hysterical “democracy defenders.”

And strikingly, it appears one party seems to have overwhelmingly benefited from the errors. You can probably guess which.

Of the Democrat-dominated states that received overcounts, among the largest overcount errors could be found in none other than President Joe Biden’s home state of Delaware, whose population was overcounted by an estimated 5.4%.

That there are no demands for answers about why the census count was so inaccurate and what will be done to ensure such errors are never made again demonstrates how hollow such concerns about “democracy” actually are.

But instead of popular sovereignty, the Democrats gave them government by coercion. If a voter rejected the choices offered by the Affordable Care Act, he or she paid a fine; party leaders extended many rights to gay individuals and even decided where some children went to the bathroom over the outcry of parents and individual schools. This is government by authorities—select men and women—not government by the people. A free people rejects the loss of sovereignty, as they have done.

After the election, the leadership showed no evidence of moving back toward popular sovereignty. An obvious way to do that would be bargaining for their constituents with President Trump. The president is a negotiator. He even put his name on a book about negotiating. He is not a traditional Republican, so he might be open to some Democratic programs on health care in return for votes on his legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare. Or he could reach agreement with Democrats on some tax changes. That’s what successful presidents, including Ronald Reagan, did.

The Democrats have rejected compromise. They chose to oppose all appointments and all policy changes. This achieves nothing for their constituents. Negotiating with President Trump was the better course. Their failure reinforces the image of the Democratic Party as ideologically driven by a vocal group promising a social revolution that such programs of redistribution can never achieve.  No prominent Democrat in elected office has spoken out about the events at Middlebury College, where a distinguished social scientist, Charles Murray, was prevented from speaking by a group of students who disliked what they had been told about his views. What happened at Middlebury is part of a repeated series of attacks against free speech and heterodox ideas at Yale, Brandeis, Berkeley, and beyond.

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech. It does not limit the protection to those we agree with. In fact, the whole purpose of it is to protect the speech of those we disagree with. The left, though, demands that we protect individuals from hearing speech that might offend them. Candidate Clinton supported a revision of the Constitution’s first amendment to protect people against unpleasant speech. Presumably, the government would decide what was acceptable. What a nightmare for freedom that would be.